Mucoacinar Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) is generally characterized by an admixture of mucous, epidermoid and intermediate type cells. Numerous variants morphologies are described and defined by stromal and/or cytoplasmic tinctorial characteristics. We now report 11 cases of MEC with serous acinar differentiation, reflecting a distal intercalated duct/acinar phenotype, which we designate as mucoacinar carcinomas. Seven patients were female while 4 were male with a mean age of 55 years (range: 21 to 72 y). Ten cases were from the parotid while 1 was from the submandibular gland. Mean size of the tumors was 1.8 cm (range: 0.7 to 4.5 cm). Three cases were low grade, 7 were intermediate grade, and 1 was high grade. Low to intermediate grade cases demonstrated prominent clear to vacuolated cells with focal serous acinar differentiation. The high-grade case showed a distinctive scattering of acinar cells interspersed between epidermoid cells. Periodic acid Schiff after diastase (9/9), SOX-10 (9/9), and DOG-1 (9/10) highlighted the acinar component. Six of 7 cases showed a focal acinar predominant NR4A3 expression. MAML2 fluorescence in situ hybridization was positive in all cases, in both acinar and mucoepidermoid components. Two cases tested by next generation sequencing showed standard CRTC1-MAML2 fusions. MSANTD3 and NR4A3 fluorescence in situ hybridization on the other hand were negative. Evidence thus suggests that mucoacinar carcinoma represents an acinar variant morphology in MEC, rather than a true MEC-acinic cell carcinoma hybrid, or collision tumor. The acinar differentiation, SOX-10, DOG-1, and even focal NR4A3 reactivity may thus be diagnostic pitfalls.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".